Formal letter of protest concerning Dembski's removal

From: Keith B Miller (kbmill@ksu.edu)
Date: Tue Oct 24 2000 - 23:43:39 EDT

  • Next message: glenn morton: "RE: Formal letter of protest concerning Dembski's removal"

    Forwarded for interest of ASA thread on Polanyi Institute.

    Keith

    >STATEMENT OF THE CRANACH INSTITUTE
    >PROTESTING THE REMOVAL OF WILLIAM DEMBSKI
    >AS DIRECTOR OF THE MICHAEL POLANYI CENTER
    >AT BAYLOR UNIVERSITY
    >
    >
    >The Cranach Institute wishes to express its dismay at the decision to remove
    >William Dembski as Director of the Michael Polanyi Center (Metanews,
    >10/19/2000). Shortly before this announcement, we learned that the
    >committee appointed to evaluate the status of the Center upheld the
    >importance and legitimacy of Dr. Dembski's work, while calling on the Center
    >to be redefined in its scope (http://pr.baylor.edu/pdf/001017polanyi.pdf).
    >In his press release (Metanews 10/17/2000 and attached), Dr. Dembski clearly
    >agreed to these terms, stating that "[t]he scope of the Center will be
    >expanded to embrace a broader set of conceptual issues at the intersection
    >of science and religion and the Center will therefore receive a new name to
    >reflect this expanded vision." We appreciate that Dr. Dembski has not
    >actually been fired as Associate Professor, but his removal as Center
    >Director does not seem to have been made on legitimate academic grounds.
    >
    >It is quite true that Dr. Dembski goes on to say that the dogmatists who had
    >wanted to close the center "have met their Waterloo." This may be
    >"offensive" to some of Baylor's faculty but (a) it is unquestionably
    >true-the center will live on, albeit with a new name and wider vision; (b)
    >it is inappropriate for a school with a strong Christian tradition such as
    >Baylor University to acquiesce to the demands of political correctness. The
    >compartmentalized approach to faith and academic work has become prevalent
    >in American Universities, even Christian ones, and it would appear that what
    >many oppose in Dr. Dembski's work (at Baylor and elsewhere) is his explicit
    >and rigorous integration of the two. How popular would Leibniz or Newton be
    >at such universities if they expressed all their views, including an
    >overarching religious understanding of their scientific work?
    >
    >There is nothing in what Dr. Dembski says in his press release that is not
    >protected by normal academic freedom, and further, while he may be called to
    >be "collegial" with other faculty, this can hardly be construed to mean that
    >he should be "nice" to those who have misrepresented his work or who have
    >engaged in caricature.
    >
    >I would like to clarify the Cranach Institute's perspective on this matter.
    >The Cranach Institute is a Lutheran research institute "devoted to
    >continuing the Reformation tradition...and applying its insights today."
    >Here is a relevant insight from the life of Martin Luther. When Rome called
    >Luther to recant his teaching on justification, Luther asked Rome to agree
    >to a neutral forum of academic debate in the great universities of Europe,
    >so that the matter could be settled by reasoned argument and not force.
    >Rome refused and paid a long-term price for doing so.
    >
    >Many universities are now in an analogous position to Rome during the
    >Reformation. There is considerable entrenched power of secular humanism and
    >an almost indistinguishable liberal Protestantism, both of which are calling
    >for dissenting (and especially robust Christian) views to be squashed by
    >force not debate. To its great credit, Baylor did not initially follow this
    >path, and instead appointed an independent peer review committee. However,
    >since the committee has upheld the academic integrity of Dr. Dembski's work,
    >it would be a retreat from the "great universities of Europe" model to the
    >dogmatism of Rome model if Baylor now relies on force to overrule the
    >committee. Is Baylor content to count itself among those universities in
    >which political power can stifle academic dissent? I hope and pray not, not
    >only for the sake of the religious mission of Baylor, but also for its
    >academic reputation as an institution which is not willing to be
    >ideologically captive.
    >
    >It is worth noting that Concordia University Wisconsin, the home of the
    >Cranach Institute, hosted the Design and its Critics conference (June 22-24,
    >2000), featuring both proponents and opponents of Intelligent Design. The
    >conference was much like the excellent "Nature of Nature" conference held at
    >Baylor during the Spring of this year. At both of these conferences, a much
    >higher degree of academic civility was attained than is usual. At many
    >conferences, such ideological dogmatism has taken hold that there is only
    >debate about the details within a system of unquestioned first principles.
    >At both the Nature of Nature and the Design and its Critics conferences,
    >there was real dialogue between proponents of different first principles.
    >Naturalism itself, the very foundation of the modern academy, was on the
    >table for review. Nor was either conference a straw-man side show. The
    >conferences recruited the very best defenders of naturalism and critics of
    >intelligent design to meet their opposite numbers so that there was a real
    >risk of each side being shown to have weaknesses. Surely these conferences,
    >both of which Dr. Dembski helped to organize, are the academy at its very
    >best, and anyone who has the knowledge and courage to facilitate them should
    >be rewarded, not punished. Certainly they were vastly superior to the
    >sycophantic gatherings of the like-minded that have made many conferences in
    >the Humanities and Social Sciences venues for the self-perpetuation of
    >unexamined prejudice. The very premise of the university is the pursuit of
    >truth, not cultural power, and when power becomes the overriding objective,
    >truth, and those who believe in it, are always the first victims. It is a
    >sorry day when universities make sacrifices of those who epitomize what a
    >university should be all about.
    >
    >For all of these reasons, the Cranach Institute urges Baylor University to
    >reconsider its decision to remove William Dembski as Director of the Michael
    >Polanyi Center.
    >
    >Yours faithfully,
    >
    >The Board of Directors of the Cranach Institute:
    >Bruce Gee, Ilona Kuchta, Dr. Angus Menuge, Rev. Todd Peperkorn,
    >George Strieter, Dr. Gene Edward Veith (chair).
    >Additional Signatories:
    >Prof. Gary H. Locklair, Rev. Michael Roberts, Don W. Korte, Jr., Pd.D.,
    >D.A.B.T, Chair Dept. Of Natural Sciences, Prof. Mary Korte.
    >
    >Dr. Dembski's Press Release of October 17, 2000------
    >
    > The Michael Polanyi Center Peer Review Committee has now released its
    > official report (http://pr.baylor.edu/pdf/001017polanyi.pdf) and the Baylor
    >
    > University administration has responded to the report
    > (http://pr.baylor.edu/feat.fcgi?2000.10.17.polanyi). As director of the
    > Center, I wish to offer the following comment:
    >
    > The report marks the triumph of intelligent design as a legitimate form of
    > academic inquiry. This is a great day for academic freedom. I'm deeply
    > grateful to President Sloan and Baylor University for making this possible,
    >
    > as well as to the peer review committee for its unqualified affirmation of
    > my own work on intelligent design. The scope of the Center will be expanded
    >
    > to embrace a broader set of conceptual issues at the intersection of
    >science
    > and religion, and the Center will therefore receive a new name to reflect
    > this expanded vision. My work on intelligent design will continue unabated.
    >
    > Dogmatic opponents of design who demanded the Center be shut down have met
    > their Waterloo. Baylor University is to be commended for remaining strong
    >in
    > the face of intolerant assaults on freedom of thought and expression.
    >
    >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
    >Footer information below last updated: 1999/12/10.
    >
    >Meta is an edited and moderated listserver and news service
    >dedicated to promoting the constructive engagement of science
    >and religion. Subscriptions are free. For more information,
    >including archives and submission guidelines, go to
    ><http://www.meta-list.org>.
    >
    >There are now four separate meta-lists to which you can subscribe:
    ><metaviews> is commentaries and bookreviews posted three to five
    >times per week. <metanews> is announcements and news and is posted
    >as frequently as needed. <metamonthly> is a monthly digest.
    ><meta-reiterations> is a higher volume discussion list which is
    >unmoderated. You can subscribe to one or all of the meta-lists.
    >
    >If you would like to unsubscribe or change your subscription options,
    >simply go to <http://www.meta-list.org> and follow the links to
    >subscribe or unsubscribe. Note that all subscription changes entered
    >on the web forms, requires your confirmation by email.
    >
    >Copyright 1999, 2000 by William Grassie. Copies of this internet posting
    >may be made and distributed in whole without further permission, including
    >the credit: "This article was circulated on the Meta Lists on Science
    >and Religion <http://www.meta-list.org>."
    >

    Keith B. Miller
    Department of Geology
    Kansas State University
    Manhattan, KS 66506
    kbmill@ksu.edu
    http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~kbmill/



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 24 2000 - 23:39:09 EDT